I was reading a very interesting article yesterday about how authorities undertook a deer cull on Mount Desert Island (Acadia National Park, Maine) back in the 1960s. It seems that once hunting was halted in the 1930s, deer grew unchecked and became a real nuisance to where something had to be done.

A couple of things caught my eye while reading that somebody needs to point out because it contributes to the problems associated with wildlife management that has become more of an act of Scientism as well as Romance Biology.

In the very first paragraph, we find: “Lately the most frequent “predators” of deer on Mount Desert Island have been motorized vehicles. But for several years in the 1960s, before coyotes migrated to the island, Acadia National Park rangers used rifles and live traps to fill the role of natural predators and cull the herd.” (emboldening added)

Lost in this quest to “save the planet” of which environmentalism is centered around, is the fact that man is a predator and a natural one. The CREATOR did not put plants and animals on this planet for the sole pleasure of environmentalists. As a matter of fact, it was the CREATOR’S intention that Man should have “dominion” over the plants and animals and to use them as a resource including sustenance.

This active Romance Biology believes that man should be removed from any equation about balance within an ecosystem and that the task can be accomplished with just letting things run their course…excluding man. Just how do you do that?

The NATURAL PREDATOR, Man, assumed their role as an “apex” predator and did what was perceived by Man, that natural predator, as a necessity; even though how the culling was done was not the intended way and best use of a natural resource.

It was around 1957 when a park “naturalist” estimated the deer population on Mount Desert Island (MDI) was between 1,000 and 1,500 animals. (The author of the piece chose to incorrectly call the deer “individuals.”)

It was thought that something had to be done to reduce that overgrown population of deer. It was decided to “live trap” and “shoot” the deer (no hunting) in order “to bring the starving herd into proper balance with nature.”

Even when misguided groups and individuals choose to assume the belief that Man is not a part of anything to do with Nature, it is impossible to get away from the very foundation of the need to manage and control certain aspects of our ecosystem in order to bring things into a socially determined “proper balance.”

Because there is no such thing as a “balance of nature” as is presented in propaganda and scientismic Romance Biology, man, who according to the environmentalists cannot be a part of the equation, always steps up to manipulate the existence to bring it in line with perspective ideals of whoever is in charge at the moment. And therefore we have the current definition of “proper balance.”

The hypocrisy here is that even those espousing to a “natural balance” cannot really believe it possible because they are always at work to bring that balance in line with their ideals. It makes little sense.

It is also inexplicable how, to some, it is acceptable to torture an animal, to capture it, or pay men to slaughter them, and yet see hunting, fishing, and trapping as inhumane, unfair, cruel, and something that needs to be stopped.

I think when push comes to shove it really isn’t about whether there is a natural balance, or whether man should be a part of the nature of things, but that a perverted sense that animals should share in the same existence as man, and thus hunting them for sport, food, or trophies, is wrong; but slaughtering them to fulfill ideals is acceptable.

*Editor’s Note* – The below opinion piece is a classic example of ignorance as it pertains to wildlife management. That ignorance is driven by emotional nonsense of “ethics,” and “values.”

The author claims that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) manages wildlife from the perspective of “the end justifies the means.” He bases this incomplete thought process on what appears to be a belief that the MDIFW manages game animals strictly for the purpose of harvest. Harvest is only one part of the North American Wildlife Management Model. This is reflected in the agency’s efforts in controlling and limiting harvest numbers in all game species when necessary. It is dishonest to lead people to believe MDIFW’s call for harvest of game is to appease the hunters because they buy licenses. I know of no hunters or trappers who would promote any fish and game agency to recklessly allow unrestricted harvest simply to pay the bills.

The author’s revelation of how he enjoys “hearing” coyotes and that hunting and trapping of coyotes is strictly for the purpose of protecting deer for hunters, is ignorant and dishonest.

It would appear that the author espouses to a “natural balance” – a false theory that if man would simply butt out of wildlife management all things would be in perfect balance. That simply is not true. I guarantee that if that practice was employed, it wouldn’t be long before people would realize the results are extremely undesirable.

Too many coyotes destroy far more than deer and they also carry and spread many diseases – many of them harmful and some deadly to humans.

The third complaint this author has is that managing wildlife makes wildlife less wild. I would concur that idea carries some merit depending upon the level to which such wildlife/habitat manipulation is taking place. However, if anyone is going to get on that wagon, then they must also stay on that wagon to argue against the introduction or reintroduction of all wildlife, in all locations, for all reasons.

If, for example, stocking Atlantic salmon fry in attempts to restore a robust salmon population, makes one believe the fish are no longer wild but farmed, then the Federal Government has no business introducing/reintroducing wolves or any other species or subspecies. It also should not be allowed to protect one species at the detriment of others, including the species of man.

Realism often gets in the way of idealism. While the author in question here certainly has the right to his opinions about wildlife management, that right doesn’t carry over in order to force another’s lifestyle and supposed “ethics” onto the others.

I see much of wildlife management within the MDIFW as a win/win trade-off. The author seems to take issue with the idea that hunters harvest game. I believe it’s a small price to pay for an idealist in order that the overwhelming costs of being good stewards of our wildlife, is taken up by those willing to cough up the money in exchange for some meat in the freezer or some extra cash to help pay the bills.

MDIFW is not infallible. As a matter of fact, I could present a real good argument that much of what MDIFW does is more in line with the desires of this opinion-piece author.

Bears and coyotes do destroy a lot of deer over the course of time and is partly responsible for a deer herd that is sparse and struggling to recover in some areas. If MDIFW’s only concern was providing deer for hunters, they would have killed a lot more bear and coyotes than is the case.

Game species (deer) trump non-game species (coyotes) because the sale of licenses is the agency’s primary source of income. If the agency were funded out of the general fund and license fees were not dedicated revenues, the agency would obviously need to be responsive to a broader constituency than just consumptive users. For economists, this is a phenomenon we see in the public sector termed regulatory capture. An interest group (consumptive wildlife users in this case) employs some technique to “captur

On September 10, 2012, the Portland Press Herald released an opinion piece in which the author believed that spending money to control the population of coyotes for the benefit of all wildlife was “ill-conceived wildlife measures”. The author claims that spending $100,000, of which only $15,000 was actually spent, was an “irresponsible use of taxpayer funds”. Was it really?

Today, in the same newspaper, a person wrote a short comment in support of the first opinion piece:

Reduce the population of coyotes enough to make a temporary difference, and those remaining will produce more pups to fill the loss in numbers. If the governor had asked the state biologists, they would have told him this.

That is the entirety of the letter.

First of all, there is no scientific evidence that proves the absurd statement that if you kill some coyotes, “those remaining will produce more pups to fill the loss of numbers”. That’s a myth that has been perpetuated by protectors of predators, like the coyote, as a means to dishonestly deceive the public in order to drum up support for private and personal agendas.

There are few that will argue that attempting to control predators can be achieved with one season of killing. It’s an ongoing thing. If the desired number of coyotes can be achieved with a required amount of effort, the task of managing a stable population is much easier.

The second issue is that the author says that if the governor had asked the state biologists, they would have told him that the coyotes would reproduce more coyotes to fill the void. That statement is probably true because most of the biologists at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, and wildlife agencies all over the world, are predator protectors and have been indoctrinated to believe the same myth the author has. Therefore, the lie is perpetuated with very few people ever challenging the concept. What a travesty!

All of this is the product of non scientific brainwashing, convincing non thinking students that nature balances itself out. That if man was somehow taken out of the equation, some kind of nirvana would ensue and all would be well. Odd that they would perpetuate this myth being that if it were true, why would any state NEED a fish and wildlife department, wasting millions of dollars each year for something they seem to think would be handled just fine without them.

Dr. Valerius Geist, a foremost wildlife scientist and professor emeritus at the University of Calgary, calls the idea of this kind of wildlife management thought as “intellectual rubbish”. But why waste my time attempting to help people understand the truth when the truth doesn’t fit their narrative?

I challenge all readers to make an attempt at learning that there is no such thing as a self-regulated ecosystem; at least not in the Disneyesque sense of things. It may surprise you to know that there does not exist a system of ecology, i.e. ecosystem. That it’s not a system at all, leading people to believe it is some kind of well-oiled machinery. In reality nothing is ever static therefore there can be no balance.

Left to mother nature, reality would scare most people, with large swings of near extinction of some species, starvation and disease. That’s how mother nature does it.

But that didn’t stop the coiners of the term ecosystem, again to deceive the public and gain their support knowing people are just all too eager to believe what they are told and not think for themselves and discover the truth on their own.

If you are actually interested in truth and not someone’s “intellectual rubbish”, you can begin by reading an article I wrote a couple years ago about Dr. Valerius Geist’s comments on natural balance and self regulation. There you will find links to scientific articles and studies that will help you understand how everything is constantly changing. Wildlife does not become balanced and remain static by itself. It is in constant flux, influenced by a host of ever changing conditions and circumstances and often leaving the forests with what is known as a predator pit; void of any population of prey species and dominated by predators. Follow the links and continue your own research. It’s not easy but sometimes discovering facts is not. It’s fascinating stuff and the truth will set you free.

If you really are a believer in the conservation of all wild things, then do yourself a favor and first, stop reading and believing the garbage being put out by fish and wildlife agencies, media and environmentalists that are agenda-driven and dishonest. The conservation is about conserving ALL wildlife not protecting one species at the expense of others.